Subject:
|
Re: More on Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Oct 2001 11:36:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
609 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Do you have a cite for that?
Two articles I recall off the top of my head, one in "Time" and one in
"Newsweek," as well as a lengthy documentary on the History Channel. On the
web, here's a historian who has done extensive research on the matter. You
actually have to take the time to READ it entirely, skimming won't do:
http://www.doug-long.com/
> Surrender to the Russians would have been unacceptable.
For whom? Do you mean America surrendering to the Russians? Or do you mean
that the Russians consider surrender as unacceptable? :\
> We had set goals for this war and it is important to set goals and stick to >them.
Even regardless of the innocent people who get killed, who have nothing to
do with nothing? Goals, shmoals, the bottom line is there used to be such a
thing as chivalry. The movie "The Patriot" pointed that out and it is as
true then as it is now. The "anything goes in war" mentality applies to
terrorists and cowards. It is very easy to kill defenseless women and
children, there's no bravery, heroism, patriotism or honor in that. If
anyone thinks there is, I suggest they talk to a Vietnam vet sometime.
> Our current
> little war is somewhat lacking in concrete measurable goals which I think
> will lead to trouble.
Little war, eh? Tell that to the Afghan civilians, who have no control over
their leadership and are being terrorized for the sake of our vengence. If
you take exception to the word "terrorize," then you have to convince me
that the Afghan bystanders are not scared senseless each time a plane flies
overhead and bombs go off around them. Sure, our supposed targets are not
civilians, yet already we've killed the innocent "by accident." And we
somehow find a way to justify children with their arms and legs blown clear
off by our bombs. Ooops. Hey, it's going to happen, this is war.
But I shouldn't single out your comments, Larry, because lot's of people say
the same things perhaps not seeing the bigger picture. We cannot continue
our cold indifference regarding murdering bystanders, whether we do it or
someone else does.
> WW II goals, as agreed to between Roosevelt and Churchill were unconditional
> surrender of all 3 Axis powers. No negotiated surrender, no surrender to
> third parties. There were good and sufficient reasons for those goals and
> deviating would have resulted in an unsatisfactory outcome.
And look how much better things have been after WWII? You know, more bombs
have been dropped in the past 35 years than all the bombs dropped in WWII?
> Unless you hold that all war is murder no matter what, it is inaccurate to
> categorise use of a weapon during war as murder. I commend use of the
> appropriate weapon for the situation. Any death is regrettable but war is
> war and deaths happen during wartime.
And "anything goes." That's part of the reason why we keep having more wars...
> Or do you think one can win a war with no death whatever?
I was under the impression that war was a lose-lose situation. Could we have
demonstrated our atom bombs elsewhere, without killing the innocent-yes! And
it was advised to do so but darn it all if ol' vengence wasn't in heart of
little Harry Truman, especially after those yellow Japs bombed us at Pearl
Harbor. The whole thing stinks, Larry.
> Would you rather we had invaded Japan and possibly paid
> millions of deaths on our side to find out that they weren't actually ready
> to surrender after all?
We'll never know, will we? But this is the world we make for ourselves and
our children, why are we making the same mistakes?
> We had just went through the conquest of Okinawa,
> one of the bloodiest butchers bills of the whole war.
Yup.
> Just to reiterate, I dispute that these bombings were "unnecessary". You are
> engaged in historical revisionism which is deplorable in and of itself,
Deplorable only to simple souls like yourself who cannot learn from history
and lack the ability to change their paradigm. If something that IS true is
revealed and changes the way we should justly think about something, how is
that deplorable? Look at the discoveries regarding our prior knowledge of
the impending raid on Pearl Harbor? So we should ignore the truth and stick
to the lie? Are you saying you reject evidence that refutes long held
misconceptions?
> but
> since you have a nodding acquaintance with truth at best, it's not too
> surprising.
Baloney.
> > I suppose you voted for Ronny, eh?
>
> What is that supposed to mean? Some sort of slur against a fairly good
> president
You're joking, right?
> or belittlement of me because I use the appropriate phrase for
> the situation (are you saying the USSR *wasn't* evil or wasn't an empire?)
I can't even comment on this, it's so absurd. But if that's the way you
feel, I'll leave it alone and sorry I brought it up.
<snipped>
The bottom line: As Americans, I feel that our indifference and distance
from the killing fields has warped our sense of value for human life to the
point that we shrug it off too casually. After the tragedies of Sept. 11th,
we cannot allow more innocents to suffer. In seeking justice/vengence, I
think we have spawned a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions in
Afghanistan. Lot's more innocent people, mostly children, are going suffer
and die this winter and I don't find that at all acceptable or just.
Dan
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| I really should stay out of this one, but I'm weak. I don't think that many of our wars have been against a group of people, but rather violent usurpers who somehow manage to gather dedicated supporters. If we could simply walk in and take out the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) I have spoken to a Vietnam Vet; last night in fact; I have a special word for him; I call him Dad. And you know what? Dad *never* killed defenseless women and children in Vietnam. I take extreme umbrage with your statement. That was a horrible (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) Do you have a cite for that? (...) Surrender to the Russians would have been unacceptable. We had set goals for this war and it is important to set goals and stick to them. Our current little war is somewhat lacking in concrete measurable (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
